Cardinal raises question: Is Pope Francis part of Church’s ‘final trial’?


#1

Eijk, who was created a cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI in 2012, got his medical degree before ordination to the priesthood and went on to complete three PhDs in medicine, philosophy and theology.

In the article, the Cardinal laments Pope Francis’ failure to bring clarity on the question of intercommunion with Protestants during last week’s meeting at the Vatican with German bishops. The Pope told the German bishops to obtain unanimous approval on the issue, but, says Cardinal Eijk, he should have simply reminded them of the Church’s clear doctrine and practice.

“By failing to create clarity, great confusion is created among the faithful and the unity of the Church is endangered,” he said.

“Observing that the bishops and, above all, the Successor of Peter fail to maintain and transmit faithfully and in unity the deposit of faith contained in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, I cannot help but think of Article 675 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,” he wrote.

That article of the Catechism, which he quoted in full, warns of a trial that will “shake the faith of many believers.” It prophesies a persecution that will “unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth.”

Cardinal Eijk warned publicly last year that by failing to clarify Church teaching over divorce and remarriage, Pope Francis was “fracturing” the Church.


#2

LifeSiteNews used to not be permitted as a news source.

That was a good policy.


#3

That’s probably the single thing I miss most about the old forum. :neutral_face:


#4

Throwing this accusation at Pope Francis?


#5

I googled the cardinal’s name and the same article is on a lot of web sites.


#6

National Catholic Register posted the entirety of Cardinal Eijk’s comments on their website. If anyone is interested in what he is saying, better to go there than read it through another site’s interpretive lens:

Note that this is from 3 months ago, so it’s not really current news.


#7

What I found interesting is this:

The German bishops’ conference voted by a large majority in favor of directives which entail that a Protestant married to a Catholic may receive the Eucharist after meeting a number of conditions: he must have carried out an examination of conscience with a priest or with another person with pastoral responsibilities; he must have affirmed the faith of the Catholic Church, as well as having wished to put an end to “serious spiritual distress” and to have a “desire to satisfy a longing for the Eucharist.”

I am not sure what id required of say a Lutheran who wished to join the Catholic church.
I am not sure, but would be surprised if the reception entailed more than Confession and a profession of Faith; it sounds like these people are, in effect, being received.


#8

That’s what confuses me about the whole thing. I am trying to imagine a scenario where someone would fall within these parameters—belief in the Catholic Church’s teaching, and a strong desire to receive the Eucharist such that failure to do so causes “distress”—and yet not want to become Catholic. I mean, maybe that happens, but I cannot imagine it.


#9

The current doctrine and practice of the RCC as to communion is a church teaching. It was not handed down from the apostles as a final truth. Christ Himself put no conditions on receiving the Eucharist (i.e. you had to be “Catholic”, you had to fast for x number of hours, etc.) Francis is questioning if intercommunion might be of benefit to Christ’s call that “all may be one”. I don’t think he is lighting the apostacy fire on this one. The pontiff has the right (and the responsibility) to continually question and examine policy and doctrine on matters of faith and morals. This cardinal is just one of the many who believe no changes should ever be made to Church teaching. I think, he, not the Pope, is wrong is this situation.


#11

So which news sites do you recommend?


#12

Why was LifeSiteNews not permitted as a news source?

As another poster stated, the same story was found on other websites.


#13

LSN does a lot of editorializing and includes a lot of misleading headlines. Even if they are reporting on the same story, they are using a tone in their reporting that does not come across as objective.

I first noticed it way back with their “Pope Opposes Harry Potter novels”. Read through Jimmy Akin’s commentary on that article:

http://jimmyakin.com/2005/07/lifesitenews_ca.html
http://jimmyakin.com/2005/07/pre16_on_harry_.html
http://jimmyakin.com/2005/07/vatican_radio_o.html

Jimmy Akin doesn’t even like Harry Potter, but he explains very objectively what is wrong with the statements that LSN made in their article. They exaggerate. And they don’t do a good job of interpreting the facts of a story in a reasonable way.

And while it seems silly to hold their feet to the fire over their opinion on a popular series of novels, it really bothers me that they take the words of a pope and twist them to say something he’s not saying—even over something so trivial. The secular press does that enough. I don’t want to see it in a publication that is ostensibly faith-based.

Ever since then, I have noticed they do this in nearly every article of theirs that I come across. Frankly, I just don’t trust them to report the facts objectively. If they report on something that I want to read up on, I’ll either google the story, or else read just enough of the article to find the link to their “source” and then I’ll go read the story there.

Sorry for the long-winded reply. :blush: I have always really wanted to like LSN, because I think the mission of reporting on pro-life stories that get overlooked by the mainstream media is a good and necessary mission. Unfortunately, I just don’t think they do it well. And further, I fear they do far more harm than good with their alarmism.


#14

Thanks for your reply. It is not a webisite I go to for news. And I don’t read a lot of articles from LifeSite, but I know many here have negative attitudes towards LifeSite just like they do Breitbart.

I have no idea who this Cardinal is, but evidenty LifeSite was not the only one
that posted an article about this.

I do not like any bashing about Pope Francis, but like with Breitbart, many people don’t agree with what they report so they bash the website which always seems to happen on CAF whenever anything from Lifesite comes up. or
Breitbart for that matter.


#15

sounds like a whole lot of news orginizations today.


#16

Thanks for posting the Jimmy Akin articles!


#17

Oh freaking come on?!?!

How low will life site go? Is there any limit.


#18

That lack of objectivity is hardly peculiar to LSN. All publications anymore have a point of view.


#19

I think some people are getting confused over doctrine and dogma…dogma is a truth revealed by God and which the Magisterium of the church has declared as binding…doctrine doesn’t change so much as to develop as the teachings are extrapolated as to a clearer meaning


#22

This topic was automatically closed after 6 hours. New replies are no longer allowed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.